No disrespect to anyone...esp. not Tony...but on the face of it (in the absence of other explanations) that's bogus, IMO. My friend at Colonial Williamsburg makes historically correct, hand welted shoes with leather insoles as thin as 6 iron. And I've done dern near the same on some women's shoes I make--all hand welted.

And beyond that from the insole outward, gemming...which stands proud of the insole...and the concomitant thick cork make for at least as thick a profile as the virtual nothing that sits between a handwelted insole and the outsole.

PS...in my experience, toe spring is toe spring--it is set by the last and, like the heel height, more or less set in stone, as well. Nothing in the closing or bottoming techniques will alter or affect it.

--

I understand what you are saying as you can make a bespoke shoes as sleek as possible but that is because it is done by hand from start to finish with a lot of hand-manual manipulation. Now, I want this to turn into the same argument as on the gemming thread as it really is a waste of time. So please realize DW that I am not here to argue which is better, only to reiterate that they did an experiment and found that manufacturing the shoes BY MACHINE and using a thicker leather insole to have a proper holdfast did not give them the desired results for their end-product requirements. And I can concur that the shoes were not as attractive and did look off balance (as I saw the prototype in person).

^^^ Isn't JM Weston still using a full leather insole with leather holdfast on some models? I think they are more or less then only ones doing it still (wasn't that uncommon in the early years of Goodyear welting if I'm correctly informed). Might be done in a different way than what G&G tried to do though.

@Handmadeshoes I think that the 890 looks better than 888 (I like to call 888 Tony's failed version of MH71 ), and sounds reasonable that they want something "own". All good for me if they exchange 888 for 890, just need to try the 890 in F-width and see how it fits me.

I understand what you are saying as you can make a bespoke shoes as sleek as possible but that is because it is done by hand from start to finish with a lot of hand-manual manipulation. Now, I want this to turn into the same argument as on the gemming thread as it really is a waste of time. So please realize DW that I am not here to argue which is better, only to reiterate that they did an experiment and found that manufacturing the shoes BY MACHINE and using a thicker leather insole to have a proper holdfast did not give them the desired results for their end-product requirements. And I can concur that the shoes were not as attractive and did look off balance (as I saw the prototype in person).

Thanks for your reply...

I can't speak to the perceived results of manufacturing techniques--I am a bespoke maker and try to limit my use of machines as much as possible. But I will say this...in my opinion and that's all it is--an opinion...degrading the quality of the materials or the techniques in order to accommodate machines raises questions about whether the machines serve us or we serve the machines.

^^^ Isn't JM Weston still using a full leather insole with leather holdfast on some models still? I think they are more or less then only ones doing it still (wasn't that uncommon in the early years of Goodyear welting if I'm correctly informed). Might be done in a different way than what G&G tried to do though.

i think so yes but that is just hearsay from what others have told me....nothing concrete

From what they (EG) told me (without actually saying it), the 890 ... an attempt to ... have something that was EG made and not Tony G made as I believe the 888 was. Of course they did not mention Tony G. directly, but one can put 2 & 2 in order to make 4, ...

It's also my understanding that the 888 (and the 82) were designed by Tony G and exactly the same 2 + 2 arithmetic occurred to me when I saw the 890 announcement.

I'm late to the Shannon party but I'm planning on picking this pair up; however, for the order to go through, 2 more interested parties are needed. I believe all orders have to be the same width; I am an E width for reference.

7.5 for sure first number is always uk sizing. Being a tweener myself I sympathize my galways on the 82 are a 9 US E but I opted for the full leather insole. I ordered my Zugs at the 8.5e US figuring it is a more generous last. I tried on a pair of chelseas at 8.5 US E at leffot and experienced no problems.

Going to finally order my EG Galways with the following specs: 82 Last, Dark Oak and Walnut Country Calf, dainite soles. I'm US9 TTS and tried 82 last in 8.5UK some time ago (BB). Going with UK 8.5E.

From what they (EG) told me (without actually saying it), the 890 is a derivative of the 888 in an attempt to phase it out (the 888) and have something that was EG made and not Tony G made as I believe the 888 was.

Edward Green “Lastology” is a bit of a science. There have been quite a few predecessors to last 890, not only the 888.

It started off with last 88 (which might hark back to the 1930s, I'm not sure). The 88 (John Hlustik: “the Great 88” was a relatively short last (as it was the fashion back then), rather snug across the vamp and had a toe shape that hovered undecided between chisel and round. When EG introduced the second “top drawer” at around 1996 (the current top drawer is the third incarnation), they introduced last 808 (a lengthened version of 88) which was exclusive to top drawer back then. It is possible, the additional length came from solely from an increase in the toe allowance (more room, but also a somewhat sharper toe, maybe slightly more square). I believe, the 808 kept the snugness and shallowness of its 88 predecessor and allegedly didn’t fit people with more fleshy feet.

That’s when Tony G enters the game as he re-designed 808 and came up with the 888 at around 2004. Exactly where the differences between 808 and 888 are, I am not certain but it seems to have more volume through the mid-foot, might be a smidgeon longer and the toe has become more of a chisel. The last 89 was a variation of the 88 and somewhat wider and fuller. I cannot recall ever having seen the last in RL’s European stores (although I have one pair of boots in the 89 which came from Japan). I presume RL USA and RL Europe (Vernier, Switzerland) are independent of each other as far a buying is concerned.

It’s not likely EG will give me access to lasts 88, 89, 808, 888 890 in the same size and width, and armed with measuring stick and tape measure to establish exactly where the differences between the various lasts are. So, I'm afraid, that’s the best I can do.

I'm late to the Shannon party but I'm planning on picking this pair up; however, for the order to go through, 2 more interested parties are needed. I believe all orders have to be the same width; I am an E width for reference.